Indonesia\u2019s House of Representatives Legislation Body (Baleg DPR RI)\ncontinued its working meeting with the government to discuss the List of\nProblem Inventory (DIM) for the Domestic Workers Protection Bill (RUU\nPPRT). During the meeting, Baleg DPR members debated the minimum age\nlimit for domestic workers (PRT) in one of the DIMs.<\/p>\n
Initially, Secretary General of the Ministry of Manpower Cris Kuntadi\nread out the DIMs one by one for discussion by Baleg DPR RI, during the\nmeeting at Baleg DPR, Senayan, Jakarta, on Monday (20\/4\/2026). One of\nthe DIMs discussed was the minimum age for someone to work as a PRT.<\/p>\n
\u201cDIM no 53, letter a. aged at least 18 years or already married, the\ngovernment\u2019s response to the substantive change in letter a. reads aged\nat least 18 years, notes in accordance with statutory provisions, 1. Law\nNo.\u00a020 of 2002 on Child Protection as amended by Law No.\u00a035 of 2014. 2.\nLaw No.\u00a013 of 2003 on Manpower,\u201d said Cris while presenting DIM number\n53.<\/p>\n
Baleg DPR RI Chairman Bob Hasan then sought agreement on the\nsubstantive change in that DIM. The meeting forum approved it.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow about it, ladies and gentlemen, do we agree that we write or\nalready married, it is feared that there are those aged 16 years, there\nare those aged 15 years, so from today after this Law is enacted, it is\nbinding, must be 18 years old. Agreed?<\/p>\n
\u201cAgreed,\u201d replied the meeting forum.<\/p>\n
However, before it was finalised, one Baleg DPR member requested that\nthe point in that DIM be discussed again. According to him, there are\nunderage children under 18 years old working as PRT, whether already\nmarried or not.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe point is we agree, but this is our idealisation, the field facts\nare the reality, there are indeed children under 18, who have passed, it\nmust be regulated,\u201d said one Baleg DPR member.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, later we will make it in the transitional provisions,\u201d replied\nBob.<\/p>\n
\u201cMeaning there is an explanation, right?\u201d asked that Baleg DPR member\nagain.<\/p>\n
\u201cTransitional provisions are also possible, in the Government\nRegulation it can also, yes, right, implementing 18 years means what\nabout those who have been ongoing before, it is certainly those before\ncannot be included in this 18 years part, because it only applies now,\u201d\nstated Bob.<\/p>\n
Bob then requested that Baleg DPR\u2019s proposal regarding the exception\nfor \u2018those already married\u2019 be included in the transitional clause. He\nasked the government to prepare a special transitional clause for the\nexception of \u2018those already married\u2019.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have agreed on this, right, directly transitional provisions,\u201d\nsaid Bob.<\/p>\n
\u201cRegarding transitional provisions, when this Law begins to apply to\nPRT who are already married but under 18 years old before this Law\napplies, they remain as PRT. Proposed,\u201d said Cris.<\/p>\n
Baleg DPR RI member from the PDIP Faction I Nyoman Parta then\nemphasised again that there are many children under 18 years old who are\nnot yet married working as PRT. He then questioned their fate.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reality, ladies and gentlemen, the reality is not only for those\nwho are married, the field reality is many who are not married but\nalready working under 18 years old,\u201d asked Nyoman.<\/p>\n
In response, Bob emphasised the exception only for PRT under 18 years\nold who are already married. He said this is closely related to the\nChild Protection Law and the Manpower Law.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, for the future, in my opinion, to safeguard, because this is\nrelated to child protection and labour. That\u2019s why this is permissive\nlanguage, meaning it applies retroactively like this, if under 18 years\nold, automatically they must follow this rule, except those who are\nalready married,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnder 18 years old tomorrow must leave first, because this applies.\nThose not subject to the age limit are only those already married, those\nnot married must leave first, Mr Nyoman. That\u2019s the offer 2. Yes, those\nnot yet 18 years old are nullified, they must follow this rule. They\ncannot work anymore. This transitional provision is made only for those\nmarried, because this is related to child protection and manpower,\u201d he\ncontinued.<\/p>\n
\u201cAccording to criminal law, under 18 years old is still considered a\nchild, cannot be treated a, b, c, d, that in the Manpower Law, the\nworkplace must accept labour at least 18 years old. Meaning the state\nhas no obligation to those under 18 years old,\u201d he stressed again.<\/p>\n
The government agreed with Bob. Cris affirmed that the government\nwill regulate children under age employed as PRT.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat the leadership said yes, same as the government\u2019s opinion, even\nif not regulated in this Law, but already regulated in Law No.\u00a013 of\n2003, so those who can work are 18 years and above, below that enter the\nchild labour category, if we find child labour in the workplace, then\nthe manpower supervisor will pull them from the workplace, because it is\nnot allowed by regulation, therefore in this proposal we also limit to\n18 years except for those already married there is regulation in the\ntransition,\u201d said Cris.<\/p>\n
Nyoman then countered again with the field fact that there are many\nchildren under 18 years old already working as PRT. He questioned why\nthe Ministry of Manpower did not regulate it before discussing the RUU\nPPRT.<\/p>\n
\u201cI understand and agree with what becomes our idealisation, our\nchildren minimum 18 years old before entering the workforce, next those\nalready married but not yet 18 years old, but the field today we cannot\nclose our eyes, Mr Minister also don\u2019t boast I will remove them, why\ndidn\u2019t you remove them from today from before? There are thousands of\nunderage children working like that, you didn\u2019t remove them, the fact\nnow there are,\u201d he stressed.<\/p>\n
\u201cWill with us hammering it tomorrow the children will leave next?\nWhat is the sanction? Then when they are not working, where is the\nstate? It must be clear first, we can\u2019t just here clash with reality\nthat we may not be able to solve yet,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Bob then responded to Nyoman. He assured that the government has no\npersonal intentions regarding the substantive change in that DIM. He\nalso reminded that employing children under age is wrong.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe seek a solution, yes sir, I believe the government also has no\npersonal intentions, the esteemed ones see<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dprs-baleg-debates-minimum-age-limit-of-18-for-domestic-workers-in-pprt-bill-dim-1776678658", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }